Diabetes in any significant form has only really presented itself from the early 1900's. Obviously back then there were less refined carbohydrate type foods, no fizzy drinks and little to none energy dense, nutrient deficient foods that decorate our shops and supermarkets tody.

As we progress forward each year the numbers for diabetes keep increasing, and with the Western diet prevalent in a good proportion of the developed world this is unlikely to change. Currently there are over 200 million diabetics worldwide, and going by current data by the year 2030 this will be somewhere between 350-400 million. A huge percentage of this can be directly attributed to poor dietary choices and a lack of vegetables, fruit, plants and wholefoods in our diets.

According to recent research, vegetables, fruit and plants comprise of only 2% of the average Western diet. This is where we are essentially going wrong.

1. ORGANIC PLANTS, FRUITS and VEGETABLES. Organic plants, fruits and vegetables should make up around 50-60% of your diet.

3. LESS MEAT (OR IDEALLY NO MEAT).Meat should comprise of less than 5% of your total food intake and this includes any dairy products.

4. FRONT LOAD YOUR DAY WITH NUTRITION.A big breakfast, good sized lunch followed by a smaller dinner (or no dinner) eaten early in the evening. A well trained athlete should have enough fuel and glycogen supplies for close to three hours of physical exercise, and that is before a meal.

Human DNA is nearly 98% identical to chimpanzees but yet our diets are polar opposites; they do not suffer from any modern day diseases such as cancer, AIDS, asthma, diabetes etc etc. DIET is the key to it all For any species to have 96-99% DNA as us and the majority of them die from old age rather than disease, it's aparrent that their diet plays a huge role in their health and longevity. Maybe if you exclusively look at chimps or monkeys then you couldn't 100% confirm that as fact, but when you start to bring in other countries that don't eat a typical Western type diet (Japan, rural China, the Okinawans etc) then you you can start to piece things together. And I'm of the opinion that it's not just the meat ~ it's the whole picture. The hormones the animals are fed play a huge part in the development of todays children for example, it is no longer uncommon for girls to get their first period at 7, 8 or 9 years old.

The average age for menstruation right now, in the Western world is 12. The average age for menstruation in rural China is 17.

This is not due to race or genetics; the only difference is what the girls are eating.

Diabetes is not necessarily a one-way street. Early studies suggest that persons with type 2 diabetes can improve and, in some cases, even reverse the disease by switching to an unrefined, vegan diet. Unfortunately, none of these studies included a comparison group. So the Diabetes Action and Research Education Foundation provided a grant to PCRM to perform a carefully controlled test.

Working with Georgetown University, we compared two different diets: a high-fiber, low-fat, vegan diet and the more commonly used American Diabetes Association (ADA) diet. We invited persons with non-insulin-dependent diabetes and their spouses or partners to follow one of the two diets for three months. Caterers prepared take-home lunches and dinners, so participants could simply heat up the food at home.

The vegan meals were made from unrefined vegetables, grains, beans, and fruits, with no refined ingredients, such as vegetable oil, white flour, or white pasta. These meals averaged just 10 percent fat (as a percentage of calories) and 80 percent complex carbohydrate. They also offered 60-70 grams of fiber per day and had no cholesterol at all. The comparison (ADA) diet contained somewhat more plant-based ingredients than the average American diet, but still relied on the conventional chicken and fish recipes. This diet was 30 percent fat and 50 percent carbohydrate. It provided about 30 grams of fiber and 200 milligrams of cholesterol per day.Participants in both groups came to the University two evenings per week for group sessions covering nutrition, cooking, and support.

There were several challenges in planning the study. Would persons with diabetes—and their partners—volunteer for the study? Would they change their eating habits and maintain the study program for the full three months? Could we find caterers who would dependably prepare and deliver attractive vegan and ADA meals? The first of these worries was quickly dispelled. On the very first day that our advertisement appeared in the newspaper, more than 100 people responded. The participants who were accepted for the study threw themselves into it with enthusiasm. One said, “I was amazed at how powerful the vegan diet was right from the beginning. The blood sugars and weight just started falling off.”

Some subjects were pleasantly surprised at how well they adapted to the experimental diet. One said, “If anyone had told me 12 weeks ago that I would be satisfied with a totally vegetarian diet, I would not have believed it.” Another participant needed more time to adjust: “In the beginning, it’s not an easy diet. But I managed to lose, at last count, 17 pounds. I am no longer on medication for diabetes, and I am no longer on medication for blood pressure. So, actually, it’s been a very, very positive result for me.” Some found unexpected benefits: “My asthma has really improved. I’m not taking as much asthma medicine because I can breathe better. The overall mental outlook on how I feel about myself as a diabetic is much more hopeful now, as I am self-sufficient with a diet that makes sense for me.”Both groups did an overall great job in adhering to their prescribed diets. However, the vegan group clearly had the edge in many of the results. Fasting blood sugars decreased 59 percent more in the vegan group than in the ADA group. And, while the vegans needed less medication to control their blood sugars, the ADA group needed just as much medicine as before. The vegans were taking less medicine, but were in better control. While the ADA group lost an impressive 8 pounds, on average, the vegans lost nearly 16 pounds. Cholesterol levels also dropped more substantially in the vegan group compared to the ADA group.

Diabetes can cause serious damage to the kidneys, resulting in protein loss in the urine. Several of our subjects already had significant protein loss at the beginning of the study, and the ADA group did not improve in this respect. In fact, their protein losses actually worsened somewhat over the 12 weeks of the study. The vegan group, on the other hand, had a large reduction in protein losses. Encouraged by the strong results of this pilot study, we are planning a much larger study for next year. We all owe a great debt to these volunteers who generously gave their time to help us learn how to improve our treatments for diabetes.

A vegan diet is very effective for weight loss, diabetes and blood health

The study authors presented their findings to a news conference in Washington, D.C., late July 2006. Dr. Barnard, along with Joshua Cohen, M.D., associate professor of medicine at the George Washington University Medical Center, and David Jenkins, M.D., Ph.D., Sc.D., of the University of Toronto, explained to reporters the significance of the findings. News reports of the study appeared in newspapers in the U.S. and abroad. The study has shown that a low-fat vegan diet treats type 2 diabetes more effectively than a standard diabetes diet and may be more effective than single-agent therapy with oral diabetes drugs. The randomized controlled trial was conducted by doctors and dietitians with PCRM, George Washington University, and the University of Toronto, with funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Diabetes Action Research and Education Foundation. The study involved 99 individuals in the greater Washington, D.C., area with type 2 diabetes. Half the group was randomly assigned to follow a low-fat vegan diet, with no limits on calories, carbohydrate, or portion sizes. The other study participants were asked to follow a diet based on the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA’s) guidelines, which involves calorie counting and portion control, but allows most foods, including meats and dairy products, in limited amounts. Participants in both groups followed the diet for 22 weeks and received dietary support in the form of cooking demonstrations, tips on following the diet they were on, and group meetings. While participants in both groups improved, the vegan group experienced significantly greater reductions in A1c (a measure of blood sugar levels over a prolonged period), weight, body mass index, waist circumference, and LDL (“bad”) cholesterol. Specifically, excluding the participants who changed or reduced their medication, A1c fell 1.23 points in the vegan group, compared with 0.38 points in the ADA group. Those in the vegan group dropped an average of 6.5 kg (14.3 pounds) each, while those on the ADA diet lost about 3.1 kg (6.8 pounds). Among those who did not change lipid-lowering medications, LDL cholesterol dropped 21.2 percent in the group following the vegan diet, and 10.7 percent in the ADA group.

More than 20 million Americans have diabetes, a condition that greatly increases the risk of heart problems and other complications. A new study has shown that a low-fat vegan diet treats type 2 diabetes more effectively than a standard diabetes diet and may be more effective than single-agent therapy with oral diabetes drugs. The randomized controlled trial was conducted by doctors and dietitians with PCRM, George Washington University, and the University of Toronto, with funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Diabetes Action Research and Education Foundation.

The study involved 99 individuals in the greater Washington, D.C., area with type 2 diabetes. Half the group was randomly assigned to follow a low-fat vegan diet, with no limits on calories, carbohydrate, or portion sizes. The other study participants were asked to follow a diet based on the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA’s) guidelines, which involves calorie counting and portion control, but allows most foods, including meats and dairy products, in limited amounts. Participants in both groups followed the diet for 22 weeks and received dietary support in the form of cooking demonstrations, tips on following the diet they were on, and group meetings. While participants in both groups improved, the vegan group experienced significantly greater reductions in A1c (a measure of blood sugar levels over a prolonged period), weight, body mass index, waist circumference, and LDL (“bad”) cholesterol.

Specifically, excluding the participants who changed or reduced their medication, A1c fell 1.23 points in the vegan group, compared with 0.38 points in the ADA group. Those in the vegan group dropped an average of 6.5 kg (14.3 pounds) each, while those on the ADA diet lost about 3.1 kg (6.8 pounds). Among those who did not change lipid-lowering medications, LDL cholesterol dropped 21.2 percent in the group following the vegan diet, and 10.7 percent in the ADA group.

“The diet appears remarkably effective, and all the side effects are good ones—especially weight loss and lower cholesterol,” said lead researcher Neal D. Barnard, M.D., PCRM president and adjunct associate professor of medicine at George Washington University. “I hope this study will rekindle interest in using diet changes first, rather than prescription drugs.”

From the landmark European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study. EPIC was designed to investigate the relationships between diet, nutritional status, lifestyle and environmental factors and the incidence of cancer and other chronic diseases.

EPIC is the largest study of diet and health ever undertaken, having recruited over half a million (520,000) people in ten European countries: Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Within these countries EPIC research scientists are based in 23 centres: one in France (Paris), Greece (Athens) and Norway (Tromsø), two in Denmark (Aarhus and Copenhagen), Germany (Heidelberg and Potsdam), Sweden (Malmo and Umea), the Netherlands (Bilthoven and Utrecht) and the United Kingdom (Cambridge and Oxford), five in Italy (Florence, Milan, Naples, Ragusa and Turin) and Spain (Granada, Murcia, Asturias, Pamplona, and San Sebastian with Barcelona the co-ordination centre). Originally there were 7 countries involved but between 1995 and 2000 Sweden, Denmark and Norway, which were already involved in similar studies, joined EPIC and thus broadened the European cohort to include Scandinavian populations. The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) is coordinated by Dr Elio Riboli, Head of the Division of Epidemiology, Public Health and Primary Care at the Imperial College London in the United Kingdom.

The Study by American Cancer Society researchers is also published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (Vol. 293, No. 2: 172-182). It is based on a long-term study of about 149,000 people between 50 and 74 years old. The participants filled out a questionnaire detailing their eating habits in 1982, and again in 1992/1993. The leader of the study was Michael Thun, MD, MS, chief of epidemiology and surveillance research at ACS. Thun and his colleagues looked at how many people had developed the disease by 2001; they then analyzed the risk according to the amount of meat that was consumed. The participants who consumed the most red meat in both time periods were 30% to 40% more likely to develop cancer in the lower part of their colon, compared to the participants who ate the least. The people who ate the most processed meats were 50% more likely to develop colon cancer and 20% more likely to develop rectal cancer compared to those who ate the least. AND Three of eight case-control studies examining the relationship between renal cell carcinoma and meat consumption found a statistically significant increase in risk with a high consumption of meat.

Eating fried meat increases your rectal cancer risk by 60%

This was a case-control study in North Carolina that analyzed meat intake by the cooking method and how the meat was prepared (rare, medium, well done etc), and estimated intake of HCAs in 620 colon cancer patients and 1038 controls, found that not only was red meat intake positively associated with colon cancer risk, but also pan-frying was the riskiest way to prepare meat due to high HCA formation.

"A cancer prevention diet is one that is high in fiber, low in fat (especially animal fat), and includes generous portions of fruits and vegetables. It also minimizes or excludes alcohol. The best diets are pure vegetarian diets."

Good thoughts on the topic, but I do want to re-emphasize, correlation does not equal causation. Some of your stats conveniently fit the story, but at the same time, they ignore co-factors and hidden variables. But overall, yes, try not to be fat and try not to eat junk food, and a healthier life will follow.

Fallen_Horse wrote:Good thoughts on the topic, but I do want to re-emphasize, correlation does not equal causation. Some of your stats conveniently fit the story, but at the same time, they ignore co-factors and hidden variables. But overall, yes, try not to be fat and try not to eat junk food, and a healthier life will follow.

I plan to delve into things a little further, I've been studying health, longevity and the bodys ability to adapt its' genetic expression to nutritional intake, lifestyle and exercise for about 10yrs and have thousands of studies like that on my hard drive. I've been doing talks/seminars for a few years and working alongside GP's, nutritionists and dieticians for the last 5yrs.

What would be the other varaibles and hidden factors that you are referring to?

Fallen_Horse wrote:Good thoughts on the topic, but I do want to re-emphasize, correlation does not equal causation. Some of your stats conveniently fit the story, but at the same time, they ignore co-factors and hidden variables. But overall, yes, try not to be fat and try not to eat junk food, and a healthier life will follow.

Thanks for dropping by anyway.

I checked with Robert beforehand as I wanted to make sure I would be welcome here, I hope I will be able to fit in and increase my knowledge and appreciation of veganism.

As I explained in another post I haven't became a full vegan yet (I'm Pesco Vegetarian). Definately, at some point I will make the shift to full vegan. Eggs I hardly eat, maybe a couple a week. I don't use sugar, don't drink alcohol and I haven't drank milk for years; I sometimes use either rice/almond milk but mainly I use a milk substitute that I mix up with water:

Right now being Pesco Vegetarian is working well for me, and I don't want to seem too restrictive with my foods as I have a 3yr old and 5yr old (both girls), so it's crucial for my wife and myself to be teaching them the importance of a healthy, balanced & varied diet. They already know that "Daddy doesn't eat meat", so I'm holding off the veganism until they're a little older and I can explain my reasonings for doing what I do.

Anyway, thanks for dropping by here and your comments about the fish oil. I'm assuming the most popular choice for vegans would be flaxseed oil?

Fallen_Horse wrote:What would be the other varaibles and hidden factors that you are referring to?

I'm at work so I probably shouldn't spend the time right now to go through everything, but I can later if you think we should go at it.

What I am trying to say is that a vegan diet isn't the healthiest diet and a high meat diet isn't the unhealthiest diet. They can both be equally healthy and unhealthy, depending on what you choose to eat or not eat in each diet. I don't think veganism argue for itself on nutrition alone, I think it does much better when moral, ethical, and environmental concerns are addressed instead.

Fallen_Horse wrote:What would be the other varaibles and hidden factors that you are referring to?

What I am trying to say is that a vegan diet isn't the healthiest diet and a high meat diet isn't the unhealthiest diet. They can both be equally healthy and unhealthy, depending on what you choose to eat or not eat in each diet. I don't think veganism argue for itself on nutrition alone, I think it does much better when moral, ethical, and environmental concerns are addressed instead.

I hear what you are saying. Sure, any diet or lifestyle can be lived healthily or unhealthily ~ I have known a few vegetarians that had apalling diets!

My primary choices to become vegan would have health in there but that wouldn't be at the top. For me it would be the environmental issues and the animal cruelty side of things. That's why I don't drink milk and the eggs I buy are organic, free range ones ~ which incidentally have lower total fat, lower cholesterol higher Omega 3 and higher Vitamin D content

Frustrating I know !! It seems obvious to everybody that smokers would take ownership of their health problems, as would heavy drinkers. The facts linking meat (especially processed meats) to various health issues have been around for many years but yet this type of strain on our healthcare systems are deemed acceptable.

Last year 200 million people in the US alone were treated for heart disease of some form; I would hazard a guess that only a tiny percentage of them would have been vegan/vegetarian.

I don't buy into the pharmaceutical side of things at all, for most illness and disease there is a natural equivalent available ~ whether this is in the form of herbs, diet etc.

I've had high cholesterol all of my life (that I know of). Probably about 10yrs ago now my doctor put me on statins for one year and I dropped from 7.5mmol to just 6.5mmol ?! I felt awful for most of that year (achey body, lethargy etc) and he switched my brand of meds three times with me ending up on a high dose of Bezalip Retard.

Out of curiosity more than anything I got tested again a week before I turned vegetarian and I was back up to 7.5 with high LDL and low HDL. Just 16 weeks after being meat free I got retested and I had dropped to 4.5mmol with pefect LDL/HDL ratios. The look on the doctors face when I went back in to see him was priceless, that was all I needed to know in terms of a meat free diet being beneficial to your health.

Ojibwa wrote:Like the guy in the Bible who said "all I know is I was blind and now I see"; all I can say is I had diabetes and now I don't. Becoming 100% vegan was the only change I made. No meds.

Not sure wheree this is going but here's a few snippets on my thoughts regarding pharmaceutical drugs...

Medications are sales items, nothing more. For every drug invented there is a natural substance (herb, vitamin, mineral) that can achieve the same effect. Disease can also 100% without a doubt be cured through diet. How? It basically comes down to colloid and endocrine chemistry - for more info and thousands of case studies just Google 'Gerson Therapy' or take a look here:

Almost all cases of treating patients with drugs is harmful, often causing side effects and sometimes even creating new diseases. The benefits they are told that they will get from them are at best temporary; this is because pharmaceutical drugs treat the sympton rather than the cause.

If drugs are necessary and are doing a great job in treating our modern day diseases, why do the number of drugs on the market increase every year? If drugs and synthetic medications (excluding antibiotics) were a necessity then with that reasoning people should be getting better from using them, doctors would learning more about the diseases and their interactions in the body and the need for drugs would be decreasing... but this isn't happening because the whole industy is actually nothing more than a giant money-making scheme. Often the drugs are designed to keep a patient from getting worse, but not better.

Next time you are around a group of people, challenge each of them to come up with the name of ONE SINGLE DRUG that can cure an illness or disease. If anybody comes up with anything please let me know straightaway !!

Just as a final note (I'm only rattling off what is coming to mind right now), take a look into the success rates of chaemotherapy and radiation. One of my immediate family is one of the head financial managers at one of our private cancer treatment centres. The thing he wouldn't want you to know as he takes your $30,000 cheque from you for your 6 week stay and treatment, is that the chance of successfully treating the cancer and permanantly eradicating it is 30%. That's THIRTY PERCENT.

Would you entrust your life into the hands of a treatment that has a 70% chance of faliure?

Herbs, plants and raw foods have been put on earth for us to use to treat what needs to be treated. We shouldn't be ignoring what is right under our noses in favour of man made 'solutions'. Sometimes the basics are the best.